federal spending on energy used in commercial and residential

Chapter 3

Federal Spending on EnergyUsed in Commercial and

Residential Buildings

ContentsPage

FEDERAL ENERGY USE IN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Electricity Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .● . . . . . . . . . . 39Fuel Oil and Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

FEDERAL SPENDING ON RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Health and Human Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Main Energy Uses in Federally Owned or Assisted Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

HOW MUCH CAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRIM FROM ITS “BUILDING ENERGY BUDGETS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Federally Owned and Leased Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Federally Assisted Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

ENERGY- AND COST-SAVING MEASURES: ARE THEY TRULY WORKINGOPTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

There Are Many Effective Energy Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46New Technologies Do Not Always Work as Planned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Savings Estimates Often Differ From Actual Savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Applicability of Efficiency Measures Is Often Site-Specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Successful Implementation Often Requires Ongoing Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR MAJOR ENERGY USES ... +... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51Miscellaneous Energy Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

BoxBox Page

3-A. A New, Improved Exit Sign: What Difference Could It Make? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

FiguresFigure Page3-1. Federal Facilities Energy Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .393-2. HUD-Assisted Housing Participants and Subsidies, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403-3. HHS-Assisted Housing Participants and Operating Subsidies, Fiscal Year 1989...413-4. Primary Heating Source, LIHEAP Households and All U.S. Households, 19$9....433-5. Military Family Housing, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433-6. Residential Energy Use and Expenditures, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

TablesTable Page3-h Commercial Buildings in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383-lb. Federal Buildings in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

3-2. Lighting Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .483-3. Comparison of Fluorescent Lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .503-4. HVAC-Related Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Chapter 3

Federal Spending on Energy Used inCommercial and Residential Buildings

The Federal Government owns and leases about500,000 buildings of various sizes, construction, anduses. In fiscal year 1989, the energy used in thesebuildings cost the U.S. Treasury about $3.5 billion.In addition, the Federal Government spends approx-imately $4 billion each year subsidizing the utilitybills of about 9 million lower income householdsthrough various assistance programs. Much of theelectricity, natural gas, and petroleum purchasedwith this combined $7.5 billion is inefficiently used.Although the responsible Federal agencies have notanalyzed basic energy- and cost-saving opportuni-ties in Federal facilities, apparently at least 25percent of the energy could be saved using a widevariety of currently available, cost-effective meas-ures. Similar opportunities appear to exist in subsi-dized households.

FEDERAL ENERGY USE INCOMMERCIAL BUILDINGS1

As of 19862 there were just over 4 millioncommercial buildings with 57 billion square feet offloor space in the United States. The main uses ofthese buildings are highly varied, including offices,retail shops, schools, and hospitals (see table 3-la).The Federal Government owns over 51,000 of thesecommercial buildings with between 1 and 2 billionsquare feet of floor space,3 and has about 7 percentadditional floor space under lease.4 As in the privatesector, Federal building uses are diverse (see table3-lb).

By far the largest Federal user of energy incommercial buildings is the Department of Defense(DOD), with about two-thirds of the total floorspace. This does not include DOD’s buildings inforeign countries. DOD commercial buildings in-clude the complete range of functions: offices, ware-houses, hospitals, retail stores, cafeterias, churches,etc. Figure 3-1 shows facilities energy use by themain Federal energy-using departments.

Federal agencies own most of the commercialbuilding space they occupy. However, Federalagencies also often lease space either from privatecompanies or from the General Services Administra-tion (GSA), which owns and leases commercialspace on their behalf. Because GSA often managesproperty for other agencies, it is the third largestowner (after DOD and the U.S. Postal Service(USPS)) of Federal buildings.

Enormous amounts of energy in several forms areused just to make the buildings inhabitable, that is,to provide light, heat, ventilation, and air condition-ing. Large amounts of additional energy are used topower the wide assortment of appliances and equip-ment used in the buildings, ranging from computersto conveyor belts to stoves. In total, $61 billion inelectricity, natural gas, fuel oil, district heat, andpropane were consumed in 1986 to operate theNation’s commercial buildings.5 Federally ownedand occupied nonresidential buildings accounted forover 6 percent of that total. 6

IDefin~ awor~g to the Energy ~o~tion Administration’s Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey EM: “roofed and w~~structures used predo minantly for a nonresidential, nomgricultural, and nonindustrial purposes and larger than 1000 square feet. ” U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Characteristics of Commercial Buildings 1986,DOE/EIA-0246 (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988), p. 3.

z~e yew 1986 is the most rewnt for which data are available. However, each year approximately IOO,OOOnew commemi~ buildings ~e cons~ct~”Ibid., p. 82.

s~id., @ble 25, p. 79 reP~ a~ut 1,1 bi~on s~~e feet in its ~~ey; U.S. Gener~ services A@s~tio~ “hvmtory Report of Real h~~Owned by the United States Throughout the World,” p. 11, Sept. 30, 1989, reports about 1.9 billion square feet in the United States.

dFrom U.S. Gmm~ Semices Ams@tiou ‘‘~ventow Rqort on Red ~op@ ~~ed to the United Stites “f’hroughout the World, ” 1989. ‘f’kKlt~port does not distinguish between residential and nonresidential uses, nor does it note building size.

SU.S. Energy Information khninktratio~ “Nonresidential Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Commercial Buildings Consumption andExpenditures 1986,” DOE/EIA 0318(86), table 1, May 1989, p. 4.

~otal spending on energy for all federally owned buildings was M billion in fiscal year 1987, according to U.S. Department of Energy, AssistantSecretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy, “Annual Report on Federal Government Energy Management Fiscal Year 1987.” Around $200miLIionof that was in military family housing. An additional amount was spent on energy used in leased buildings for which the Federal Government does notpay utilities directly.

–37–

38 ● Energy Efficiency in the Federal Government: Government by Good Example?

Table 3-la—Commercial Buildingsin the United States

All buildings

Number of Total floor spaceBuilding activity buildings (1,000) (million sq. ft.)

Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Food sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Food service . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Health care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mercantile/service . . . . . . . . .Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Public safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Warehouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

571240102201

51137

1,273607

50487

943,813

7,2877,200

7121,2772,1042,785

12,7109,499

6658,5403,730

56,508

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy lnformation Administration,“Commercial Buildings Consumption and Expenditures 1986,"DOE/EIA-0318(86), May 1989, p. 9.

Table 3-1 b—Federal Buildings in the United States

Total floor space(million sq. ft.)

Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510Research and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705

SOURCE: U.S. General Services Administration, “Summary Report ofReal Property Owned by the United States Throughout theWorld as of September 30, 1988," GSA Public BuildingsService.

Electricity Use

Electricity is the dominant energy form used incommercial buildings in terms of total annuals p e n d i n g ( $ 4 7 b i l l i o n i n 1 9 8 6 , $ 2 bFedera1). 7Electricityisessentialforpoweringlights,electronic equipment, and the wide array of motorsfound in everything from elevators to conveyor beltsto heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC)equipment, and is also used for heating and cooking.It is also the most expensive per unit of energydelivered to the Federal Government (at $17/millionBtu, electricity is four times more costly than naturalgas).

Precisely how is electricity used in Federalcommercial buildings? Although a large body ofinformation is available, the amount of electricityactually used in any given building for any functionsuch as lighting or office equipment can be onlyapproximated since individual appliances or devicesare not individually metered. Buildings “typicallyhave a single meter tracking the total amount ofelectricity being used by all devices. Some Federalfacilities such as military bases and other multibuild-ing complexes have even less information available.These facilities may have only a few meters monitor-ing energy use for a facility with hundreds orthousands of buildings. The lack of detailed infor-mation about energy use in Federal buildings is afrequently cited impediment to the analyses andprograms needed to implement cost-saving effi-ciency measures.

Due to the wide variety of building uses, geo-graphic and weather conditions, type and age ofconstruction, maintenance histories, and other fac-tors, the amount of energy used in different buildingsis highly variable. As weather conditions changefrom year to year, HVAC demand can changesignificantly. This complicates efforts to identifyand monitor the performance of widely applicableenergy- and cost-saving measures. It also compli-cates efforts to set standards of performance, such asmaximum energy use per square foot, and tocompare buildings. Each building has unique energy-use patterns and cost-saving opportunities.

Despite the limitations on detailed or site-specifinformation, there are some general estimates of therelative consumption of different uses. Lighting andair conditioning are the largest overall uses ofcommercial building electricity, although estimatesvary. For example, one Electric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI) study estimated that lighting andcooling, respectively, consume 41 percent (sincerevised to 34 percent) and 31 percent of commercialbuilding electricity. 8 As should be expected, thestudy’s estimates varied greatly by building type; forexample, hotels were estimated to use only 23percent of their electricity for lighting, with 43percent used for cooling. Reflecting the uncertaintyinherent in determining detailed energy uses, other

VU.S. Ener~ Information Administration, op. Cit., fOOtnOte 5.8Gmrg~ ~ti~te of Te~~~l~~, The Comti Planning s~~tem: National ad Regio~[ Data a& Analysis, EPRI EM-6 (pa10 AltO, CA:

Electric Power Research Institute, March 1986), p. B-37. Current best estimate of 34 pereent for lighting from letter from Clark Gellings, Electric PowerResearch Institute, Feb. 15, 1991.

Chapter 3--Federal Spending on Energy Used in Commercial and Residential Buildings ● 39

500400300

200100

0

Figure 3-l—Federal Facilities Energy Use

1985 1989Fiscal year

Agency

m D O D = D O E m U S P S

- V A = G S A m O t h e r

NOTE: Site accounting used for electricity (see ch. 2).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy ManagementProgram, “Report on Federal Government Energy Managementand Conservation Programs,” October 1990.

studies have produced quite different estimates. Forexample, a Gas Research Institute (GRI) studyestimated that only 26 percent of electricity used inbuildings is for lighting (11 percent in hotels), farless than EPRI’s current estimate of 34 percent.9

However, both studies agree that lighting andHVAC together account for over 70 percent of totalcommercial building electricity use.

Natural Gas

Natural gas is the second most heavily usedenergy source in the Nation’s commercial buildings.It is the dominant energy source for space heating,water heating, and cooking, and accounted for $8.4billion in 1986.10 The Federal share of this spendingwas around $0.5 billion. As in the case withelectricity, no one knows precisely how muchnatural gas is consumed in different uses. However,fewer devices use natural gas, so both metering andestimating use are less complicated. GRI estimatesthat space heating alone accounts for over two-thirdsof gas use in commercial buildings, with under 4percent used for water heating. The remainder isconsumed in miscellaneous uses including cookingand cooling.

Fuel Oil and Miscellaneous

Fuel oil is used in just 12 percent of commercialbuildings, mainly for space heating, with a total billof $2 billion. A disproportionately large share, 25percent or 17.4 million barrels/year, of that total isused in Federal facilities. The fuel oil is used almostentirely for space heating.

Some of the Nation’s largest buildings use districtheat (e.g., steam or hot water generated in a centralplant and distributed to a number of buildings) forspace heating, water heating, and cooking, with atotal bill of $2.6 billion. There is also some use ofdistrict cooling. Federal buildings use a dispropor-tionately large amount of district heat relative toother buildings. This is consistent with the high levelof oil use, and reflects the use of fuel oil to generatesteam for district heating systems. The remainingenergy forms (e.g., propane and wood) are far lesscommon and used mainly for space heating.

FEDERAL SPENDING ONRESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE

As of 1989 there were over 90 million householdsfor about 240 million people in the United States.ll

The Federal Government subsidizes or pays part orall of the utility bills in about 9 million of thesehouseholds. Two executive agencies are responsiblefor the vast majority of Federal expenditures onresidential energy use: the Departments of Housingand Urban Development (HUD) and Health andHuman Services (HHS). These two agencies subsi-dize or provide assistance payments for residentialutility bills for low-income Americans. In addition,DOD houses 1.4 million military personnel and theirdependents in family housing, and a few otheragencies have a few thousand residences.

In total, $98 billion in electricity, natural gas, fueloil, district heat, and propane were consumed in theNation’s homes in 1987 to operate appliances and

gGas Resewh Institute, Baseline Projection Data Book (wSSbkl@OIL DC: 1989), P. 122.IW.S. Dep~ent of Energy Information Administratio~ op. cit., footnote 5, table 2, p. 5-6.ll~SPpU~tioneS~te d~snot in~lUde ~ehomeless and ~ple living in insti~tio~ (e.g., diw bmcb, @SOIIS). U.S. BWW3U Of the CSIXWS,

StatisticaZAMract of the United States: 1990, llOth ed. (Washington DC: 1990), pp. 2,45.


Figure 3-2—HUD-Assisted Housing Participants and Subsidies, 1989

Participants

~ Millions1

5

4

3

2

1

0i

I

Public housing Sec. 8 Sec. 202

Program

IZZZl # of units m # of tenants

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

provide hot water, heating, and cooling.12 In 1989,the Federal Government’s share of housing energycosts was about $4 billion.

Housing and Urban Development

Each year, HUD spends from $2 to $3 billionsubsidizing the energy bills for 3.6 million federallyassisted housing units (see figure 3-2). 13 There aretwo main HUD-assisted housing programs: a low-income public housing program and the Section 814

rental housing assistance program which can be usedin privately owned housing.15 Both programs areadministered by HUD-regulated local public hous-ing authorities (PHAs), of which there are about2,700 nationwide.

Public Housing

Under the public housing program, local publichousing authorities and Indian housing authoritiesdevelop, own, and manage housing projects. Theyreceive HUD subsidies for construction, rehabilita-tion, and operating costs. Currently, approximately1.4 million housing units in nearly 10,000 individual

Subsidies

12 $ billions

10-—————V

8 -

6-

4 -

2-

0 1 1

Public housing Sec. 8 Sec. 202

Program

= Operat ing subsidy = Ut i l i ty subsidy

~ Total Subsidy

projects are administered by 2,700 PHAs. In total,about 3.8 million people live in public housing.

Energy expenditures constitute a large fraction ofHUD’s total spending on public housing. HUD’spayment subsidy for utilities in these units for fiscalyear 1989 was over $900 million (most was forenergy, but this figure also includes water andsewer). l6

Tenants of public housing typically pay 30percent of their adjusted family income toward rentplus utilities, with the remainder of costs paid for bythe housing authority (which is reimbursed byHUD). HUD does not keep account of the totalannual spending on utilities including both HUD andtenant copayments.

Section 8

HUD’s Section 8 low-income assistance programsubsidizes 2.3 million housing units. Unlike publichousing, Section 8 housing maybe privately owned.Through the Section 8 program, HUD subsidizestotal housing costs, including both rent and utilities

lzne yew 1987 is the most recent for which detied data are available for residential energy use. However, each year over 1 million new householdsare added to the existing stock. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1987 Part1: NationuZ Data, DOE/EL4 0321/1(87) (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing oftlce, October 1989), table ES1, p. viii.

13J.M. MacDonald et al., Existing Building Eficiency Research, 1987-1988, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 0~/CON-268 (washingto~ DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1988), p. 25.

ldsection 8 from the United Sates Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437f) (1990, Cumulative AIUI~ pocket part).]sFor a histon~ Ovemiew of ~-msisted-housing Progms, see Gmce ~lgr~ Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Housing

Policy: Low-and Moderate-Income, E388106 (Wmhingto~ DC: Congressional Research Service, Aug. 29, 1990).16JOIIII Comerford, U.S. Dep@ment of Housing and Urban Development personal cO~Uni@iOQ Oct. 17, 19N.

Chapter 3-Federal Spending on Energy Used in Commercial and Residential Buildings . 41

Figure 3-3-HHS-Assisted Housing Participants and Operating Subsidies, Fiscal Year 1989

Participants Operating subsidy

Millions , * $ billions16 , I I I

14I

12

10

8]r,6

420

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0Heating Cooling Crisis Weatherization Heating Cooling Crisis Weatherization

assistance assistance

Type of assistance Type of assistance

= # of households Z%ZZl # of occupants m $ LIHEAP subsidy

SOURCE: Number of occupants based on average household size in the United States. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of EnergyAssistance, “Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to Congress for FY 1989,” October 1990.

for low-income, elderly, or handicapped tenants ofparticipating rental properties. HUD subsidizes thedifference between “fair market rent” (includingutility expenses) and 30 percent of tenant adjustedincome.

HUD does not keep track of energy use andspending in Section 8-assisted housing. As a result,less is known about the cost of energy in Section 8housing compared to the public housing program.However, based on the amount of energy spendingin public housing ($650/unit annually), a reasonableestimate of annual Section 8 subsidies which areused for energy is $1.5 billion. As with publichousing, this estimate does not include the amountpaid for by tenants.

Health and Human

HHS’ LOW Income HomeProgram (LIHEAP)18 assists

Services 17

Energy Assistancelow-income house-

holds in meeting costs of residential heating orcooling. Some LIHEAP recipients live in HUD-assisted housing, but the majority do not. HHSprovides grants to the States and to Indian tribes andterritories which administer the program. In fiscalyear 1989, HHS spending on LIHEAP totaled $1.4

billion. States supplemented this amount with oilovercharge funds ($174 million), LIHEAP carry--

overs from fiscal year 1988 ($82 million), and asmall amount of State funds ($6 million). In total,around 15 million19 people in about 6 millionhouseholds were assisted with heating and coolingsubsidies (see figure 3-3). The 6 million householdsreceiving LIHEAP assistance represent only around23 percent of those eligible under the Federalmaximum income standard. That is, over 25 millionhouseholds meet the Federal maximum incomestandard for LIHEAP assistance. States often applymore restrictive standards.

LIHEAP assistance covers some but not all of thetotal cost of a recipient’s energy use for heating andcooling. For example, approximately 50 percent ofa typical recipient’s heating costs are paid byLIHEAP, with the remainder paid by the recipient orother sources. Twenty-one percent or about 1.3million LIHEAP households live in HUD-assistedhousing, so they receive energy subsidies or assist-ance from both HUD and HHS.

Until 1994, States are also allowed to divert 10percent of LIHEAP funds to nonenergy block grantssuch as social services, community services, and

17~s Se c tio n iSbm~ ~nfi~rmati~n~on~ed inu.s. Dq~mentofHeal~ ~d Human Servims, Of-ficeof Energy Assistance, “LowIncomeHomeEnergy Assistance Program Report to Congress for FY 1989,” October 1990.

18The ~w~(.omeHomeEnm~ ASSiStance~o-iS aU&ori~dby Tide ~ of tie Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (OBRA), ~blicLaw 97-35, as amended.

l-s does not @ack the nm~r of ~ople ~sist~ by ~~. ~s es~ate is based on av~age household size in the United StateS.


alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health services. Infiscal year 1989,28 States did so, most of them to themaximum amount, reducing the total spending onenergy assistance.

The majority of LIHEAP recipients use naturalgas as their primary heating source, with fuel oil andelectricity far below. Compared to all U.S. house-holds, LIHEAP recipients use far less electricheating and more liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) andkerosene (see figure 3-4).

Department of Defense

DOD houses over 1.4 million military personneland their dependents in 422,000 multifamily andsingle family housing units worldwide (see figure3-5). Most reside in the United States, but largeconcentrations are in several other countries. TheU.S. Army, largest of the services, has just under halfthe total housing units and just over half of the totalserved population. In addition to family housing,military barracks house a large number of troopswhich are not included in these totals.

Generally, energy used in individual units isneither separately metered nor charged for. Totalenergy use in military housing is around 53 billionMBtus annually. This energy cost the FederalGovernment around $200 million based on theaverage cost of energy.

Main Energy Uses in Federally Ownedor Assisted Housing20

As in the commercial sector, only a few mainenergy uses constitute the majority of residentialenergy consumption and spending (see figure 3-6).By far the highest on the list both in terms of totalenergy use and spending is space heating. Heatingenergy use and expenditures vary greatly dependingon factors such as climate, type of building, size ofhousehold, and condition. For example, an averagehousehold in west coast States spends one-third asmuch on heating as a New England household, andan average single family household spends twice theamount on heating as one in a large apartmentbuilding. As an indication of increased energyefficiency in construction over time, homes built

since 1980 use only two-thirds the energy of homesbuilt before 1950, after adjusting for weather andhome size. Natural gas supplies over two-thirds ofthe energy used for space heating. Most of the rest(20 percent) is provided by fuel oil and kerosene,with the remainder split between electricity and LPG(5 percent each).

Nearly every household has a water heater, whichon average consumes 18 MBtu/year, making that thenext largest residential energy use. As with spaceheating, natural gas provides two-thirds of theenergy used in water heaters. Some large apartmentcomplexes (common among assisted housing proj-ects and some military housing) may have a centralboiler providing water heating and/or space heating.

Refrigerators are the largest single use of residen-tial electricity, consuming about 20 percent of thetotal. Nearly every household has a refrigerator, andon average, it consumes around 1,500 kWh/year. Airconditioning is the second largest residential elec-tricity use after refrigerators. Unlike refrigerator use,energy use for air conditioning depends strongly onhousehold location and type. For example, only athird of households in the relatively cool Northeasteven have air conditioning, compared to 80 percentin the South.21 And those air conditioning units inthe South consume on average more than double theamount used in units in the Northeast. Air condition-ing depends strongly on income levels. Householdsbelow the poverty line are a third less likely to haveair conditioning than the average household. A largelist of other uses constitute the remaining 16 percentof household energy. These include cooking, dish-washers, clothes washing and drying, lighting, andelectronic equipment such as televisions.

As in the case with U.S. housing generally, energyuse in federally assisted and owned households isdiverse, reflecting the diverse nature of the buildingstock and weather conditions across the country .22There are many building styles in public housingprojects, ranging from high-rise apartments to low-rise apartments to groups of two- or three-storyduplexes. Large projects may have several hundredunits. Age and condition of public housing varieswidely, too. Many projects were constructed prior to

~ne tiormation in tbk+ s~tion is derived from, op. cit., footnote 12. The descriptions here are true of housing in general, although federally o~edor assisted households have some different attributes.

ZIU.S. Department of Energy, Energy ~ormation Administration, op. cit., footnote 12, tables 7, 32, ES1, October 1989.zzseeper~s & Will and Ehrenkrantz Group, ‘‘AnEvaluationof tbe Physical Condition of Public Housing Stoelq Vol. 4,” HUD Report H2850, 1980.


Figure 3-4—Primary Heating Source,

Natural gas 56%

LIHEAP Households and All U.S. Households, 1989

Natural gas 55%

her 7%

Electricity 1 10%

Other 7%

.PG 5%rosene 2%

Electricity ye K e r o s e n e 4 %Fuel oil 13% Fuel oil 12%

LIHEAP recipients All U.S. households

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Energy Assistance, “LO W Income Home EnergyAssistance Program Report to Congress for FY 1989,” October 1990.

Figure 3-5—Military Family Housing, 1989

Number housed

Thousands

Residential energy consumption

Billion MBtus800

600

400

200

0

25

20

15

10

5

0 —Navy Air Force

Service

Army

of occupants

Navy Air Force Army

Service

= Residential use

NOTE: Source accounting used for electricity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defense.

Figure 3-6—Residential Energy Use and Expenditures, 1987

Other appliances

\1

16%. Air conditioning

~ Refrigerators7%

Water heating

Space heating54% A Water heating

L 18%

Other appliances30%

Energy use Energy expenditures

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “’Household Energy Consumption 1987,”DOE/EIA-0321/1(87) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989).


the first oil-price shock in 1973, and were built withaccordingly low insulation levels. HHS-assisted andmilitary households have a similar broad range, withthe addition of single family houses. Even within agiven complex, units can have widely varyingenergy use. For example, an end unit in an apartmentbuilding, with more exposed walls and windows,may require considerably more fuel for heating thanan interior unit. Similarly, the same unit with differ-ent occupancy levels can have different energy use.

HOW MUCH CAN THE FEDERALGOVERNMENT TRIM FROM ITSBUILDING ENERGY BUDGETS?

Federally Owned and Leased Buildings

There is little question that a large fraction ofthe Federal Government’s $3.5 billion directannual spending on energy in its buildings couldbe greatly reduced using cost-effective, well-proven technologies. For example, at the fivefederally owned or leased facilities in OTA’scommercial case studies (see ‘‘Chapter 5: CaseStudies”), the facility managers estimated that anaverage savings of at least 25 percent in annualoperating cost and energy use appears achievablewith proven and highly cost-effective technology.This level of saving requires no change in occupantcomfort or productivity; rather, it involves moreeffective use of energy, either through more efficientequipment or through improved operations andmaintenance practices.

OTA’s case study estimates included only highlycost-effective options in which the capital costs andother costs of implementation are small compared tothe savings, with simple paybacks of under 3 years.A less stringent economic test which is moreconsistent with the cost of capital in the UnitedStates would likely produce considerably higherestimates. For example, the 3 year payback repre-sents a long-term return on investment of about 30percent, far higher than the average rate of return onelectric utility investments (about 14 percent in

1991) or the Treasury’s cost of funds (currentlyunder 8 percent).

Several recent analyses of the potential for energyefficiency in commercial buildings in the UnitedStates have estimated that gains of 25 percent ormore are technically and economically feasible. 23

While these analyses do not focus on Federalfacilities, they are indicative of the potential fortypical buildings. Whether Federal facilities offermore or fewer opportunities for improvement isspeculative.

The Federal Energy Management Programhas not developed estimates either of the govern-ment’s potential energy and cost savings nor ofthe capital and other resources required to attainthose savings. Similarly, none of the individualenergy-using Federal agencies contacted by OTAhave produced estimates for their own facilities.All cite difficulties of performing the informationcollection and analyses required for even approxi-mate estimates. Although building audits mandatedunder the Energy Conservation Policy Act wereconducted at most major facilities in the past decade,there has been no Federal effort to compile theresults, much less to keep results current. The sameis true of the facility energy surveys mandated underthe Federal Energy Management Improvement Actof 1988.

The lack of reasonably detailed, comprehensiveanalytical effort to date should not be interpreted asrepresenting a lack of energy efficiency opportuni-ties. Although Federal agencies have not publishedoverall estimates of prospects for efficiency gains,they often take the public position that large gainsare possible.24 It is important to note that many easy,low risk (or risk-free) energy- and cost-savingmeasures with excellent economic characteristicshave yet to be implemented at Federal facilities.The best options currently available appear to beexcellent ways to reduce costs, energy, and environ-mental impacts under virtually any set of reasonableassumptions of future energy prices.

23 Forexwple, S* R.S. C~lSmiti et ~.~ “Energy Efficiency: How Far Can We 00?” ORNLJI’M- 11441, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, OakRidge,TN, January 1990; and Barakat & Chamberliq Inc., ‘‘EfIlcient Electricity Use: Estimates of Mamm“ um Energy Savings,” EPRI CU-6746, Electric PowerResearch Institute, March 1990; and COrmnittee on Alternative Energy Research and Development Strategies, National Research Council, ConjbntingClimate Change: Strategiesfor Energy Research and Development, DOE/EH189027P-Hl (Washington, DC, August 1990), pp. 80-90.

~Fore~pIe, S=U.S. Dep~ent of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, “titiWmtmRxkr~ @Ver~ent~WY~mWnentand Conservation programs Fiscal Year 1989, ’ Oct. 3, 1990, p. 26-41; and Executive Order 12759, signed Apr. 17, 1991, which includes a provisionfor a 20-percent reduction in both buildings and industrial facilities by 2000.


Federally Assisted Households

As in the case with the Federal Government’scommercial buildings, there seems little questionthat increased use of existing, proven technolo-gies would reduce a large fraction of the $4 billionin residential energy paid for by the governmentin federally owned and assisted households.These gains require no change in occupant comfort.For example, a program of early refrigerator retire-ment coupled with using the most efficient modelsavailable offers the prospect of reducing Federalresidential electricity expenditures by a few percent.Such an early retirement program for other appli-ances such as water heaters and washing machinescould also cost-effectively save both gas and elec-tricity. These energy- and cost-saving applianceopportunities exist in all types of federally ownedand assisted households.

Since space heating is the leading residentialenergy use, many opportunities for energy and costsavings depend on promoting higher efficiencyheating equipment and weatherization programs.Opportunities for savings are large. For example, acomprehensive study of energy-saving opportuni-ties in public housing published by HUD in 1988estimated the potential for over 30-percent savingswith an average payback of 4.5 years for capitalinvested.25 These results were consistent with astudy performed a decade earlier.26 OTA’s casestudy of one public housing authority found that atleast 30-percent gains could be realized using highlycost-effective measures such as weatherstrippingand insulation. Several field studies of programimplementation have verified that large savings arepossible, although the performance in differentprojects has been highly variable.

Results of field studies of low-income weatheri-zation programs (e.g., those funded by HHS andDOE) have found considerable savings potential,although results are variable. 27 To gain a better

understanding of the potential gains and best meth-ods to use, DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Pro-gram recently began a comprehensive 3-year, $5-million review of performance. This analysis shouldhelp identify the economically and technically mosteffective programs for the future. HHS has notanalyzed the effectiveness of LIHEAP weatheriza-tion funds in reducing energy use and reducing thefuture need for LIHEAP tiding, but is providinginput to DOE’s Weatherization Assistance Programstudy. Analyses of the relative merits of energyassistance and weatherization assistance have beenlargely left to the individual States which administerthe HHS funds.

Although weatherization and rehabilitation pro-grams have been promoted in federally assistedhouseholds, much remains to be done. For example,HUD’s 1988 study of modernization needs foundthat the total one-time investment required to bringproperties up to minimum standards and “enhancetheir long-term viability” (including safety, health,and environmental improvements as well as energy)amounted to over $20 billion.28 However, annualspending on modernization has been only $1.6billion during the past several years.29 Similarly,each year less than 1 percent of the low-incomehouseholds eligible for LIHEAP utility paymentsare weatherized under either LIHEAP or DOE’sweatherization assistance programs.

It is difficult to estimate total spending on energyefficiency at HUD: funds spent on general rehabili-tation often include some energy measures but arenot listed as energy efficiency efforts. For example,double-pane insulated windows may be used whenreplacing broken single-pane windows. The result isconsiderable improvement in the building’s resis-tance to heat loss, but may not be noted as an energyupgrade. Similarly, repair of flat roofs may beaccompanied by added insulation. Because the pri-mary reason for an energy efficiency upgrade maybe

~~e study idenmledcapit~ improvements and repairs, such as f- windows and upgrading HVAC equipmenc costing $939 million w~chwotidsave $211 million annually. In addition, window repairs and improved operation and maintenance practices costing $98 million and needing to berepeated every 3 to 5 years would save$112 million annually. These Operations& Maintenance practices include weatherstripping and caulking. AbtAssociates, “Study of the Modernization Needs of the Public and Indian Housing Stock” HUD-1130-PDR, March 1988, pp. 83-84. Note that HUD’stotal annual utility spending for public housing is around $900 millioq as described previously.

~Per~ & Wiu and Ehrenkrantz Group, op. cit., footnote **.27see for e=ple, ~ny of tie ~icles fi proceeding~fiom the ACEEE 1990 Summer S&y on Energy Eficiency in Buildings (Washington ~:

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1990), vol. 1 to 10.~Abt Associates, op. cit., footnote 25.Z9U.S. Housing and Urban Developmen~ “Programs of HUD 1989- 1990,” HUD-214-PA(17), October 1989, P. 75.


basic maintenance, keeping track of spending and im-plementation of efficiency measures is complicated.

ENERGY- AND COST-SAVINGMEASURES: ARE THEY TRULYWORKING OPTIONS FOR THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?For nearly every application of energy in residen-

tial and commercial buildings, measures are avail-able that can improve the efficiency of use.30 Many,but certainly not all, have attractive cost andperformance characteristics. Deciding which meas-ures to pursue, if any, often requires careful engi-neering and economic analyses. Successful pro-grams, those which reduce energy use and overallcosts, also often require ongoing, dedicated efforts toensure that they work initially and continue to work.This section examines some of the useful lessonsfrom the past decade of energy efficiency programs.

There Are Many Effective EnergyEfficiency Measures

The variety of currently available efficiencymeasures and the range of economic and perform-ance characteristics is large. Many currently avail-able measures appear to have excellent economicand performance characteristics and have beenproven in use, although they are not yet standardpractice. There is a large and growing body ofapplied research into the performance of a variety ofenergy efficiency programs.31 There is also a largebody of less formal information in trade journalswhich report on the results of efficiency measures .32These report on a continuing stream of successfulenergy management efforts following a wide rangeof approaches.

New Technologies Do Not AlwaysWork as Planned

After many years of energy efficiency effortsthroughout the U.S. economy, including within theFederal Government, it is clear that energy effi-

ciency programs can work well. It is also clear thatsome energy efficiency technologies and programshave not always performed as well as expected. Bothresearch and trade journals report a steady stream ofprojects performing below expectations. (They alsoshow a steady stream of projects which performexcellently.) Sometimes new technology does notperform as it should, as in the case of the excessivefailure rate of some early electronic ballasts. As acorollary, technologies are continually being im-roved and refined, or disappear from the market.Again, electronic ballasts provide an example withthe high reliability they now have demonstrated.

As with any evolving technology (and as withmany well-established technologies), some productshave marginal to poor performance and economicsbut have yet to be driven off the market. Naturally,this greatly complicates the job of facility managersin implementing cost- and energy-saving technolo-gies.

Also, because of the wide variety of buildings,uses, technologies, and other conditions, it is alsopossible that good technologies can be misapplied,resulting in poor performance or unmet economicexpectations.

33 For example, because compact fluo-rescent lamps are larger and heavier than theincandescent lamps they replace, there are manylight fixtures in which they cannot be used. Also,although the color of light produced is good, it is notidentical to incandescent light. A program to replaceall incandescent lamps in a building with compactfluorescent which neglects those facts could pro-duce considerable dissatisfaction.

Savings Estimates Often DifferFrom Actual Savings

Estimates of potential savings are important forprogram planning, but the aim of energy manage-ment programs is to realize actual reductions inenergy use and overall costs. Analyses of pastenergy efficiency programs have often found thatsavings were less than expected, sometimes by large

~h ongoing OTA s~dY* “Residential and Commercial Energy Efficiency,” is examining the difference between estimates and actual resultsin-depth.

31see for exmple, U.S. Dep~ment of EnerW, Buildings Energy Technology, any issue; or Proceedingsfiom theAcEEE Sum?nerStudy on EnergyEficiency in Buildings (Washingto~ DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy), Biennial, any issue.

32See, for exwple, any issue of Energy User News, published monwy.330ne exaple of a publication ~~ch h~ de~]ed @icles about a wide range of energy. sav@s oppo~ties in actil Use is Energy User News,

published monthly. The real world, site-specific information presented there can be of great use in reducing the risk of using new energy efficiencymeasures.


amounts. There are many reasons. Sometimes tech-nologies simply do not perform as planned. Savingsestimates are often based on idealized engineeringanalyses which may be distinctly different fromconditions found in practice. Generally, measuringthe actual impact of a conservation measure isdifficult due to the lack of detailed energy usemetering and the variability in use resulting fromweather and occupancy changes.

Applicability of Efficiency MeasuresIs Often Site-Specific

Some energy- and cost-saving measures aregenerally good practice and should be widelyapplied, requiring relatively simple engineering oreconomic analysis. For example, use of motiondetectors to control lights in occasionally usedspaces such as restrooms, conference rooms, andprivate offices makes economic sense and performswell in most such circumstances. Eventually, use ofthese approaches may become the rule rather thanthe exception that they currently are. Anotherexample is the apparently cost-effective and reliablecombination of high efficiency electronic ballastscoupled with fluorescent “T-8” tubes.

Other measures have highly site-specific eco-nomic and performance characteristics, requir-ing fairly detailed engineering and economicanalyses. For example, the benefits of adding anenergy management system depend on the type ofheating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipmentin place (and possible plans to replace existingequipment), as well as the building’s schedule,external characteristics and internal layout andoccupancy. Similarly, opportunities to delamp, orreduce lighting in overlit areas, can only be deter-mined from a site survey which evaluates currentlighting levels and the levels which would resultafter delamping. While the applicability of thesemeasures is site-specific, conducting site surveysincluding engineering and economic analyses toidentify candidate measures followed by funding,staffing, and implementation should be a reason-able general practice. To realize the potential costand energy savings, the site survey would have to be

followed by detailed audits and implementationwhere indicated.34

The desirability of any measure depends onseveral factors including the performance, initialcost, operating costs or cost savings, environmentalimpacts, and risk. All measures cost something butsome, such as performing preventive maintenanceon steam traps are nearly free, are well-proven (thusentail little technical risk), and can generate consid-erable savings. Other measures, such as replacingexisting low efficiency light fixtures and lamps withhigh efficiency systems, may involve a capitalexpenditure which is rapidly paid back throughreduced operating costs. Still other measures, suchas the early retirement and replacement of a moder-ately efficient air conditioner with a more efficientbut commercially unproven unit, may or may notpay back.

Successful Implementation OftenRequires Ongoing Effort

Energy efficiency measures generally involvechange. There are changes either to equipment or tooperating and maintenance practices, and there arecontinuing changes in the available technologies. Atany facility, ensuring that the best practices andequipment are being applied requires ongoing,dedicated effort. This is critical not only for ensuringthat the technologies work as planned and forrefining them when needed, but also for separatingsuccessful approaches from poor ones.

EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIESFOR MAJOR ENERGY USES

This section examines some of the main energyuses found in Federal commercial and residentialbuildings, and some technologies applicable toenergy efficiency gains. 35

Lighting

Lighting is ubiquitous in commercial buildings,and is responsible for around 25 to 50 percent ofelectricity use in those buildings. In addition to theenergy used directly by the lights, heat produced by

~For an in-depth discussion of energy audits, See Albert ~~ Handbook of Energy Audits (Lilbur@ GA: Fairrnont Press, Inc., 1983).ssFor an etiustive description of a wide range of energy efficient measur es, see for example, Architect’s and Engineer’s Guide to Energy

Conservation in Existing Building: Volume 2-Energy Conservation Opportunities, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, DOE~1830P-H4,April 1990. That report describes 118 energy conservation opportunities using currently available products which could be considered for cmnmexcirdbuildings. Also see Battelle-Columbus Division and Enviro-Management & Research, Inc., DSM Technology Alternatives, EPRI EM-5457 (Palo Alto,CA: Electric Power Research Institute, October 1987), for descriptions of 99 energy efficiency technologies which can affect electricity use.


lights contributes significantly to air conditioningloads in commercial buildings, indirectly contribut-ing to additional electricity demand. Lighting is afarsmaller contributor to residential energy use, but stillaffords some economic opportunities.

Many lighting measures for commercial buildingapplications have been heavily researched over thepast two decades.36 During this time, a wide range ofapproaches and products for improving the perform-ance of lighting have been pursued and imple-mented. Several lighting measures now availableappear to offer considerable energy- and cost-savingpotential, with attractive reliability and perform-ance. (Table 3-2 summarizes the main approaches tothe more efficient use of electricity for lighting.) Thethree main approaches are: reduce unneeded illumi-nation, increase efficiency of lamps, and increaseefficiency of fixtures.

General Services Administration together withthe Department of Energy (DOE) have announced a$10-million program to make use of energy efficientlighting measures in the National Capital Region.This program will take advantage of an energyefficiency incentive program offered by the PotomacElectric Power Co., the local electric utility.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) takes thelead for Federal procurement of lamps and ballastsand resale to other agencies. In 1989, this responsi-bility was transferred from GSA, which retains mainresponsibility for other lighting products such asfutures. DLA does not emphasize high efficiencyproducts in its role as main provider of bulbs andballasts.

Reduce Unneeded Illumination

Delamp overlit areas, use task lighting. Anyeffort to reduce illumination levels needs to be basedon a careful, site-specific analysis of illuminationrequirements. Failure to do so can cause workerdissatisfaction and perhaps reduced performance,neither of which are consistent with energy effi-ciency efforts.

However, buildings often have higher illumina-tion levels than needed for occupant comfort.Minimum illumination levels are specified by facil-

Table 3-2—Lighting Efficiency Measures

Reduce unneeded illumlnat!onDelamp overlit areasUse task lightingUse lighting controls

Occupancy sensors and timersDaylight with automatic dimmers

Increase efficiency of lamps and ballastsUse high-efficiency lampsUse high-efficiency ballasts

Increase efficiency of light fixturesUse refIectors and high-efficiency fixturesClean and maintain fixtures

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

ity engineers, the Illumination Engineering Society,and others depending on the type of activity. Forexample, GSA requires 50 foot-candles of illumina-tion for desks, and 30 foot-candles for hallways.Lighting levels can be reduced very inexpensivelyby removing lamps, as in the case of removing twolamps and disconnecting one of the ballasts in afour-lamp fixture. Using lower output lamps mayalso reduce power, as in using 34-watt fluorescenttubes to replace standard 40-watt tubes. In this case,the 34-watt tubes are slightly more efficient than the40-watt tubes, and light levels are not proportion-ately reduced. Task lighting allows reducing overalllight levels by increasing light on the desk orworking surface.

Use lighting controls such as occupancy sen-sors, timers, and daylighting with automaticdimmers. A variety of methods for turning lights offwhen not needed have been developed and demon-strated in practice.37 Turning lights off which are notneeded can both reduce energy use and extendreplacement time for the lamps. Frequent switchingreduces fluorescent lamp operating lives, but withmodern tubes only a short period of being turned offcompensates for the additional switching. Auto-matic switching using occupancy sensors is morereliable and convenient than manual switching, andis well suited to bathrooms, conference rooms, andsome hallways and private offices. Simple timedswitches are inexpensive, and perform well inlocations such as storerooms. Several brands ofoccupancy sensors have established good operatingrecords, and when installed in a suitable location

Sssee ~bert ~U~ Lighting Efi”ciency Applications (Lilburn, GA: Fairrnont ~ess ~c., 1989).sTSee, for ex~ple F. Rubinstein and R. Verderber, ‘‘Automatic Lighting Controls Demonstration,” prepared for Paciilc Gas& Electric Co., March

1990. This project, which combined a variety of control strategies centering around dimmm“ g electronic ballasts, demonstrated savings ofover50percx-mtwith a payback of under 2 years for a small office space.

Chapter 3--Federal Spending on Energy Used in Commercial and Residential Buildings . 49

have good economic characteristics. Detailed sitesurveys and analyses are not required for occupancysensors and timers. However, a reasonable estimateof the schedule of use of lights and the opportunityfor curtailing use is needed.

Automatic dimming controls sense lighting levelsand turn down lights when daylight is present. Theymay be suitable for use in offices at buildingperimeters or near skylights. Daylighting is findingincreased use in new buildings and retrofits, but isnot widely applied. Opportunities are highly site-specific.

Increase Efficiency of Lamps and Ballasts

Tremendous advances have been realized in theefficiency of bulbs and ballasts over the past decade,many of which are not widely used in Federalfacilities. Most of the commonly used types oflamps, including fluorescent, incandescent, mercuryvapor, metal halide, and high- and low-pressuresodium, have all had significant performance im-provements. Demand for some new high-efficiencycompact fluorescent lamps and electronic ballastshas grown so rapidly that it may outstrip supply .38

Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts—Many highefficiency lamps and electronic or hybrid electronic/magnetic ballasts that replace standard fluorescenttubes and standard magnetic ballasts have beencommercialized. Laboratory studies indicate that themost efficient combination presents savings oppor-

tunities of up to 39 percent compared with standardtubes and ballasts.39 Table 3-3 compares the effi-ciency of different combinations of ballasts and

lamp efficiencies for ‘‘cool white” 4-foot tubes. Atleast some of the products available have beenwell-proven in widespread use and noted in industrypress. 40 In 1988, electronic ballasts captured around4 percent of the market, a small amount but enoughto prove reliability .41

Table 3-3 also shows the bulk costs of ballasts andtubes. Generally, the higher the efficiency of lampsand ballasts, the higher the first cost. However, the

cost of lamps and ballasts is less than the cost of theelectricity those components will use in their life-time. Paybacks for replacement and for use in newconstruction are often rapid, under 3 years. Forexample, the T-8 tubes and electronic ballasts appearto have clearly superior economic characteristicscompared with standard fluorescent for use in newconstruction and when existing components reachthe end of their life. Performance is comparable orsuperior to that of standard systems, with better colorand reduced flicker, although some ballasts maygenerate power quality problems such as unwantedharmonics. In many cases, early replacement (e.g.,replacing a still-functioning lamp) with high effi-ciency components is economically attractive.

Prior to 1990, standard magnetic ballasts, hybridelectronic/magnetic ballasts, and electronic ballastswere all available in the commercial market fromseveral manufacturers. However, the National Ap-pliance Efficiency Act of 1988 set a minimumefficiency standard for most common ballasts whichremoves standard ballasts from the domestic market.Even though the least efficient ballasts are no longermanufactured, existing stocks are still marketed.This, together with their long 10-year lifetime,means that these costly-to-operate devices willcontinue to consume excessive amounts of electric-ity and Federal energy dollars for several years.

Incandescent Lamps—While the majority oflighting fixtures in most commercial buildings arefluorescent, some incandescent lamps are also used.In contrast, most residential lighting is incandescent.Over the last few years, fluorescent lighting technol-ogy has gradually improved, with the lights gradu-ally becoming small and light enough to substitutefor screw-in incandescent lamps in certain fixtures.These compact fluorescent lamps consume onlyabout 25 percent of the power of a standardincandescent lamp of the same light output. How-ever, compact fluorescent lamps remain consider-ably heavier and larger than incandescent lamps, andthus cannot always be used in the existing fixtures.

38C 6AS DSM Rograms G@ consultant Warns of Possible Lamp Shortages, ’ Electric Utility Week, Feb. 25, 1991, p. 14.ss~~pe~o-nce of Electronic B~lasts and Li@ting Controllers With 34-W Fluorescent Lamps: FM Report, ” ~wrence B~keley ~borato~,

February 1988.~see for e~ple, R.S. Abesamis, P. Bbc~ ~d J. Kessel> “Field Experience With High-Frequency Ballasts, ” IEEE Transactions on Zndusfry

Applications, vol. 26, No. 5, p. 810811, which describes the successful application of over 45,000 high-frequency electronic ballasts at the Universityof California at Berkeley.

41u.s. Departmentof Energy, ‘ ‘Trends inEnergy-Efficient Lighting, Conservation and RenewableEnergy Inquiry and Referral Service (C AREJRs),March 1990.


Table 3-3-Comparison of Fluorescent Lamps(77 test room— 4-lamp recessed troffer, plastic lens)

Ballast Relative light Relative lightLamp type Ballast factor 1a Watts a Output 2 a output/watt a cost 5 b c

T-12 standard (40 W) . . . . . . . . . Standard magnetic4 0.95 174 100 100 n/aT-12 energy-saving (34 W) rare

earth tri-phosphor . . . . . . . . . . Standard magnetic4 0.90 155 93 104 n/aT-12 standard (40 W) . . . . . . . . . Energy-saving magnetic 0.95 162 101 108 26.80T-12 energy-saving (34 W) rare

earth tri-phosphor . . . . . . . . . . Energy-saving magnetic 0.88 139 91 114 27.80T-8 lamp (32 W) 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-8 electronic 0.92 106 98 161 47.80

NOTES: 1. Data in test normalized to ballast factors shown in this column for magnetic ballasts. Factors shown for electronic ballasts are measured valuesof sample.

2. Relative light output based on initial (100 hour) rated lamp lumen output.3. Life rated at 15,000 hours. All other systems shown are rated at 20,000 hours.4. Standard magnetic ballasts are only available for export since the National Energy Appliance Conservation Act (NEACA) passed in 1989.5. Cost column is the cost of the lamp multiplied by four, plus the cost of the ballast.

SOURCES: aNational Electrical Contractors Association.bJim Osborne, Magnetek, personal communication, FetmarY 1 Ml.cCustomer Service, General Electric Lighting, personal mmmunication, Mar. 11, 1991.

A compact fluorescent lamp is far more expensivethan the incandescent it replaces. For example, a15-watt compact fluorescent purchased by the Fed-eral Government costs around $7, compared to about$0.30 for the 60-watt incandescent it replaces.42

However, savings on both energy costs and mainte-nance costs can be very high if the lamp operates afew hours a day or more. For example, for lightsturned on 8 or more hours per day on weekdays,compact fluorescent lamps can pay for themselves inunder 1 year.43 Maintenance savings result becausethe fluorescent lamps have a lifetime 10 times longerthan standard incandescent, potentially decreasingmaintenance and replacement costs considerably.However, for an incandescent turned on only 1 hourper day, the potential savings are small relative to thecost of a compact fluorescent.

Use of compact fluorescent replacements forincandescent lamps is increasing in the commercialsector. However, further advances (notably in sizeand weight) are necessary before they become therule rather than the exception for even heavily usedlights. For occasionally used lights, considerablereduction in first cost is also necessary.

For incandescent fixtures in which compactfluorescent lamps are too heavy or too large to work,higher efficiency incandescent are available whichreduce consumption by 10 to 20 percent and producethe same light output.

Use High Efficiency Fixtures

In the past several years, a large number of newfixtures have been marketed, intended to improvethe distribution of light, increase efficiency, andimprove visual comfort. The key features of highefficiency fixtures are reflectors and lenses whichdirect light toward the working space. High reflec-tance silver or aluminum reflectors inserted intofluorescent fixtures can increase fixture efficiencyby 20 to 35 percent.44 Also, because the efficiency offluorescent tubes decreases outside a certain range ofoperating temperatures, a feature of efficient fixturedesign allows heat dissipation to maintain optimalbulb temperatures.45 Measuring the performance ‘f

fixtures is difficult, depending not only on the levelof illumin ation resulting, but the distribution of lightat the working surface.

‘$2&nera.1 Electric Customa’s Service, personal commticatioq Mar. 26, 1991.d3~@ sav~gs in cost-of-energy is about:

(8 hour/day)* (235 days/year)* (0.045 kilowatts)* ($0.07/kilowatt-hour) = $6/yew,Incandescent lamps, with an average lifetime of 1,000 hours, must be replaced twice per year if operated 8 hours daily, so the compact fluorescent

additionally saves about 1/2 hour of labor, approximately $10 for typical maintenance workers. Note that benefits from reduced maintenance may notaccrue if maintenance workers are made idle but remain on the payroll.

aT.K. McGowan and H.H. Whitmore, “Performance of Fluorescent Reflector Inserts,” GE Lighting, Nela PsrlL ON undated.4SSee Energy con~emation Potential A~~ociated With The~l[y Eficient FIWrescent F~mres, ~wrence Berkeley hboratory, CA, prepared for

Department of Energy, Washington DC, June 89.


Photo credit: Christine Onrubia

Compact fluorescent lamps are nearly four times moreefficient than incandescent lamps, but are too large

to fit in many popular fixtures.

To keep any fixtures operating optimally, basicmaintenance in the form of cleaning is required. Thelight from very dirty fluorescent fixtures and lampsmay be less than 70 percent the light from the sameequipment when clean.

46 It is possible that highefficiency fixtures may be more susceptible todirt-induced degradation than standard counterparts.

Future Directions in Lighting Efficiency

Advances in lighting technology are continuingalong a variety of fronts. Better lamps, ballasts, andfixtures are all being pursued by manufacturers.These efforts should continue to improve the pros-pects for efficiency, applicability, and customeracceptance. One area which could benefit fromadditional effort is product testing. Performance,including efficiency, visual comfort, and reliabilityof new products is often difficult to gauge. Becauselighting technologies are constantly evolving, sys-tematic testing and reporting from a reliable sourcecould be of considerable help to building managers,with their limited time and resources to explore thevast array of available options.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

As with lighting, HVAC is ubiquitous in commer-cial and residential buildings, including those ownedand assisted by the Federal Government. In many

buildings, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning,in total, account for the majority of both electricenergy use and energy use overall.

During the past two decades, many approacheshave been heavily researched which can reduce theenergy needed for heating, ventilating, and airconditioning. 47 (Table 3-4 s ummarizes the mainapproaches to the more efficient use of energy forHVAC.) The two main approaches are: improve thebuilding envelope and increase efficiency of HVACequipment including efficient operation and mainte-nance.

Improve Building Envelope

HVAC use depends in part on the amount of heatgained (during summer) or lost (during winter)through a building’s envelope (the exterior walls,windows, doors, roof, and floors). Envelope im-provements control heat gain or loss to reduce theload on HVAC systems. With many HVAC-relatedmeasures, retrofitting existing buildings is moredifficult and expensive than installing them duringconstruction, highlighting the importance of goodinitial design for new Federal buildings.

Infiltration, the unintended and uncontrolled entryof outside air into a building, may add considerablyto a building’s heating and air conditioning load.Some measures to control infiltration such ascaulking and weatherstripping doors and windows,and ensuring windows are kept closed when HVACis being used, are low cost and part of a good,ongoing facility maintenance program. These meas-ures should be pursued at all Federal facilities. Othermeasures such as adding vestibules or revolvingdoors or vapor barriers in walls require capitalspending but may be worthwhile in some buildings.

Conduction, the transfer of heat through walls,roofs, windows, floors, and doors, also contributes toheating and air conditioning demand. Opportunitiesfor adding insulation in any Federal facility dependgreatly on the type of building, including its age,location, condition, type of construction, and exist-ing insulation. There are a variety of insulationproducts available for walls, floors, and ceilings,some of which have been manufactured usingchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). These products will be

461~ uminating Engineering Society, Lighting Handbook (New York, NY: 1972).q7F~r anin.de~~ di~cu~~ionof many ~e~.e~tablished me~mes, see D. pad Mehta and A. ~~~ HandbOOkOfEnergYEnginee~ng (Lilb~ GA:

Fairmont Press, Inc., 1989).

52 Energy Efficiency in the Federal Government: Government by Good Example?

Table 3-4—HVACa-Related Efficiency Measures

Improve the building envelopeReduce infiltration

Caulk and weatherstrippingVestibules and revolving doors

InsulateRoofs walls, floorsStorm doors and windowsVapor barriers in roofs and walls

Reduce solar heat gain through windows and roofsShadingReflective window filmsReflective roof surfaces

Increase efficiency of HVAC systemsPerform system maintenance regularlyOperate equipment efficiently

Install and use an energy management systemInstall efficient equipment

Ventilation equipmentChillers, air conditioners, and cooling systemsBoilers and furnacesDistribution systems

aHeating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

effected by restrictions on production and use ofCFCs due to the atmospheric environmental im-pacts. Both relatively new and long-existing prod-ucts are also available to decrease conductionthrough doors and windows. Storm doors andwindows, a long-proven technology, reduce heatgain or loss. New “low emissivity” or “insulatingglass” windows, used with or without storm win-dows, can greatly further reduce heat transfer.

Solar heat gain through windows and roofs canadd considerably to cooling loads and decreasewinter heating loads. Both window and roof solarheat gain can be controlled using simple andinexpensive measures in many cases. For example,the amount of solar heat gained through a roof canbe reduced by using reflective or light-color paintson the roof. Solar heat gained through windows canbe reduced using reflective films or shading, eitherwith roof or wall overhangs or with trees for somelow buildings. The benefits of measures to controlheat gain depend on many factors including buildingsize, orientation toward the sun, side of the buildingeffected, and climate. Selecting measures requires acareful analysis of these factors as well as the

tradeoff between the benefits in s ummer and thepotential losses in winter.

Increase Efficiency of HVAC Systems

Space heating in Federal facilities is providedwith a variety of equipment. Most facilities usenatural gas or oil in a boiler which makes steam orhot water, or a furnace which makes warm air. Thesteam, hot water, or warm air is distributed througha building using a system of pipes or ducts. Manybuildings also use electricity for heating, using heatpumps or electric resistance heaters, which oftenneed no distribution system.48 There is a similarvariety of cooling equipment including centralchillers which produce either chilled water or air,and local heat pumps or air conditioning units.Often, the same system of pipes or ducts is used forboth heating and cooling, depending on the season.

Preventive Maintenance--Besides turning equip-ment off when not needed, the simplest and mostbasic energy efficiency measure for HVAC systemsis a program of regular preventive maintenance. AllHVAC system equipment including distributionequipment, requires regular maintenance for peakperformance and efficiency, but will continue tofunction (inefficiently) even if not properly main-tained, For that reason, regular preventive mainte-nance, rather than maintenance when equipmentfails is essential.

The list of maintenance items can be long anddepends on the specific equipment.49 Some mainte-nance steps such as cleaning burner tips in boilersusing heavy fuel oil and checking controls may berequired as frequently as daily and may almost beconsidered part of efficient operations. Others needto be performed weekly or monthly or annually.Examples include such functions as cleaning orreplacing air filters in ducts and air conditioners,cleaning boiler surfaces, cleaning evaporators andcondensers in chillers, and repairing leaks in ducts,pipes, and boilers. Simple maintenance steps, if notalready being performed, could lead to considerablecost savings.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that at least somepotential gains exist. For example, one study of theHVAC system at DOE’s Forrestal building in

au-s. De~~ment of Energy, Ener~ ~omation A&nifis@ation, Nonresidential Bui ld ings Energy consumption Su~eY: co~rcial BuildingsConsumption and Expenditures 1986, DOE/EIA 0246(86) (Washingto~ DC: U.S. Government Printing OffIce, May 1989), p. 168.

d~or a discussion ofm~temnce Practims, see Paul D. Mehta and A. Thumam Handbook of Energy Enginee~”ng @.ilbu~ GA: F~ont press,Inc., 1989), ch. 14, “Energy Management. ”

Chapter 3-Federal Spending on Energy Used in Commercial and Residential Buildings ● 53

Washington, DC found that an intensive program ofsteam trap maintenance and repairs together withsimple operational changes such as turning thesteam system off on weekends reduced total build-ing energy costs by over 6 percent, or $260,000.50

Similarly, one review of twelve variable-air-volumeair conditioning systems at six Navy facilities foundthat ‘the general level of operating and maintenanceservices being supplied is very poor and notsufficient to make . . . systems function properly.There appears to be no effective preventive mainte-nance/inspection program. ’ ’51 Finally, at OTA’s site

visits to four federally owned facilities, personnel inat least two sites expressed some doubt that HVACmaintenance or operations were carefully conductedfor efficiency. There seem to be no systematicmechanisms or incentives to ensure that HVACsystems in Federal facilities are properly maintainedfor peak efficiency. This is not to say that Federalagencies ignore operations and maintenance issues.GSA, for example, requires building managers to

keep plans for efficient operation, and has standardsfor maintenance intended to ensure efficiency.Examining the different approaches taken by Fed-eral agencies and private-sector facility managers tosee which work best, and applying those methodsthroughout Federal facilities could be very produc-tive.

Efficient Operation-Closely related to efficientmaintenance, efficient operation is another low costmeasure to minimize energy use and cost. Efficientoperation involves carefully monitoring ambienttemperature and humidity as well as heating andcooling demand, and operating equipment accord-ingly. As with maintenance, there are a variety ofmeasures to pursue which together help ensureefficient operation. For example, in systems withmultiple chillers, efficiency can be improved byisolating one or more units during periods of lightcooling demands (e.g., early mornings). Anothersimple method is to adjust boiler or chiller output to

the minimum required level, which depends onheating and cooling demand. Also, use of econo-mizer cycles, which use outside air for cooling whentemperature and humidity are suitable, can producesubstantial savings. The opportunities for energy-

and cost-savings from efficient operations dependon the type of equipment, the characteristics of thefacilities, and the efficiency of current operations.

Energy Management and Control Systems—Sometimes, adding new equipment can help im-prove the efficient operations of existing equipment.One type of such equipment, developed largely to

ensure efficient operations of existing HVAC sys-tems, is the building energy management and controlsystem (EMCS). There are several commercialvendors of EMCS.

The functions performed by an EMCS can be assimple as shutting off the HVAC system afternormal business hours. However, there are alsoincreasingly sophisticated, computer-based systemswith perhaps thousands of temperature and humiditymonitoring points throughout a facility, as well as

monitors of ambient conditions and HVAC equip-ment performance. This information, coupled withdetailed, automated control of the HVAC equip-ment’s fuel, air, temperature, and other equipmentsettings, can be used to minimize energy andoperating cost. Also, the remote and continuousmonitoring of the performance of HVAC systemcomponents allows operators to identify areas need-ing maintenance. For example, an EMCS cancontinuously monitor the input and output watertemperatures and fuel use in a boiler, which togetherindicate the boiler’s efficiency. Reduced efficiencyindicates that maintenance is needed, possibly assimple as cleaning boiler surfaces or burners tips.

Properly installed, maintained, and used, an

EMCS can greatly aid in reducing operating andmaintenance costs. It also can help measure anddocument energy savings. However, it is not a magictool. To reach its full potential, an EMCS requiresnot only a combination of good equipment, andproper design and installation by the vendor, but alsoan ongoing period of training, followup work, andmaintenance by the HVAC operators. HVAC opera-tors need to have time to dedicate to learning thesystem capabilities, and experiment with differentapproaches to using both- the HVAC and EMCSequipment. For example, operators can experimentwith different boiler temperature settings which

~Jeff S’. I-Iaberl and E. James VaJd% ‘‘Use of Metered Data Analysis To Improve Building Operation and Maintenance: Early Results From TwoFederal Complexes,” paper presented at American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 1988 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings,Asilomar, CA, Aug. 28 to Sept. 3, 1988.

s~Tom R. Todd, “=ten~ce of Variable-Air Volume WAC Systems, “ in Federal Construction Council, Technical Report No. 95: Maintenanceof Mechanical Systems in Buildings (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1990), pp. 19-23.

54 ● Energy Efficiency in the Fe&v-al Government: Government by Good Example?

depend on ambient temperatures and humidity, aswell as temperatures and humidity at different pointswithin the buildings being heated. Because everyfacility is unique, the opportunities for EMCS toimprove HVAC operation must be individuallytailored. This requires a capable, well-trained, andinterested operations staff.

Many EMCS’ have been installed in Federalfacilities, and individual agencies have supportedongoing efforts to improve their performance. How-ever, results to date are mixed.52 All of the fourfederally owned commercial facilities in OTA’s sitevisits had some sort of EMCS equipment, some of itfairly old. However, in at least two cases the EMCSequipment was not being used as intended in itsdesign, apparently due to some combination ofimproper design, installation, maintenance, andtraining. According to one study, “. . . Federalagencies have had significantly more HVAC controlproblems than private owners. ”53 That study sug-gested that adopting some private sector approachescould improve performance in Federal facilities.Those include giving consulting engineers moreflexibility in designing systems; requiring consult-ing engineers to write more detailed specifications(e.g., the accuracy and location of thermometers andthe precise conditions which should cause valves tobe opened or closed); and involving the consultingengineers in the installation and startup of newsystems to ensure they are properly operational andthat agency personnel are properly instructed.

Install Efficient Equipment

Much HVAC equipment in use today in Federalfacilities is quite old. Large improvements haveoccurred in the efficiencies of chillers, air condition-ers, boilers, furnaces, and the motors which powerpumps and fans in HVAC equipment. 54 For exam-ple, a new packaged air conditioning unit mayconsume 30 percent less energy than one manufac-tured in the 1960s. High efficiency heat pumps haveattractive cost and performance characteristics in

warmer climates, providing both air conditioning insummer and space heating in winter. As old equip-ment is replaced over time, efficiency will generallyincrease. However, there is a fairly wide range ofefficiency in equipment being produced today.Typically, higher efficiency equipment is moreexpensive than less efficient counterparts, but gener-ates cost savings over its long life. Trading offbetween higher frost cost and lower operating costsrequires careful engineering and economic analysis.

Some components can be kept working fordecades. Because equipment costs are high, replac-ing working equipment is often not cost effective.Still, some of the HVAC equipment in Federalfacilities may be past its economic life. Unfortu-nately, analysis of whether replacing an existing unitwould reduce net costs is usually not made: equip-ment is used until it ceases to work.

Miscellaneous Energy Uses

Miscellaneous energy uses include everything notmentioned above. They are a small but rapidlygrowing portion of building energy use, with devel-opments such as office automation and computing,advanced medical scanning technologies, and simu-lators gaining use. Some of the other many miscella-neous uses are more traditional, such as waterheating, cooking, refrigeration, and elevators.

There are many opportunities for efficiency im-provements in miscellaneous energy uses (see box3-A). For example, water heating for commercialuse can be made more efficient with well-provenapproaches including using new heaters with pulsedcombustion and better insulated tanks, and insulat-ing distribution piping. Another example of anopportunity for increasing miscellaneous use effi-ciency is in new electric motors. Motors are used ina variety of commercial applications, from elevatorsto HVAC pumps and fans to postal automationequipment. The most efficient electric motors avail-able in today’s markets are considerably more

s@OraneXample of asystemw~c~~to &tefailed to meet expectations, see F. Boerckerand J. McEvers, ‘‘A Post-Installation Review of the EnergyMonitoring and Control System at Red River Army Depo~’ Oak Ridge National Laborato~, O RIWJTM-10137, May 1990. Other installations havehad successful EMCS applications. See, for example, Douglas A. Decker, “A Self Financing Energy Conservation Concept for the FederalGovernment,” Strategic Planning for Energy andthe Environment, vol. 10, No. 3, winter 1990-91, pp. 64-66, which describes cost savings at the U.S.Army’s Fort EuStiS, VA USi13g EMCS.

Sssee Building Rese~ch Board, Natioti Research Counci~ Controls for Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems @kh@tO% DC:National Academy Press, 1988), pp. 23-24,43,44.

~For a description of high-efficiency electrical HVAC equipmen$ see Resource Dynamics Corp., Handbook of High-E@ciency Elecmic E~”pmentand Cogeneration System Opn”onsfor CommercialBuildings, EPRI CU-6661, December 1989; and D.W. Abrams, P.E. & Associates, Commercial HeatPump Water Heaters Applications Handbook, EPRI CU-6666 (Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, January 1990).

Chapter 3----Federal Spending on Energy Used in Commercial and Residential Buildings ● 55

Box 3-A—A New, Improved Exit Sign: What D#ference Could It Make?

There are hundreds of thousands of exit signs in Federal commercial buildings, consuming in total severalmegawatts of power around the ciock.

Exit signs are one excellent example of energy- and cost-saving technological progress, even though theyrepresent only a tiny fraction of total electricity use in buildings. For decades, exit signs in commercial buildingshave commonly been lit by a pair of standard incandescent lamps. Though at $0.20 each they are cheap to buy, theselamps are expensive to use since they operate inefficiently around the clock. Each sign consumes from 210 to 1,050kWb/year at a cost of $15 to $75; the need to replace theselamps as they burn out as often as every 2 months addsaround $60 annually to their total cost. ~

By replacing the incandescent lamps in existing signswith compact fluorescent lamps, energy costs are consider-ably decreased to between $7 and $11. Even more signifi-cantly, the 10,000-hour life of a compact fluorescent meansthe $6 lamp needs replacement less than once per year,giving an average annual maintenance cost of only $14. Thetotal annual savings compared to an incandescent exit signare between $55 and $110. Lower operating and mainte-nance costs in the first few months alone more than payback the higher initial lamp and ballast cost of $15 andinstallation.

While the compact fluorescent is a clear advance overincandescent-based exit signs, a further improved exit signtechnology has recently been commercialized. Exit signs Photo credit: Gilbert Emergency Lightingrelying on light-emitting diodes (LED) are even more energyefficient and less expensive to operate, using as little as 6.7 If used in all Federal facilities, exit signs using light-

watts. Furthermore, these signs need infrequent replacement emitting diodes could be a cost-effective way to save

or maintenance (the electrical components have a lifeseveral megawatts of electric generating capacity.

expectancy of 25 to 30 years). LED signs are available under a General Services Administration authorized FederalSupply Schedule2 for as low as $71.47, only slightly more expensive than a new exit sign using incandescent lampsand actually less expensive than anew sign with a compact fluorescent.3 Thus, when purchasing new exit signs (e.g.,for new construction), LEDs should produce net cost savings right from the start or soon thereafter. Even when usedto replace an existing fluorescent-lamp exit sign, they should produce a simple payback of under 4 years.

1~~ ~x=ple ~~es tie following assmptiom: elwtrici~ costs $0.07/k~ each standard fixture uses a ptiof ~c~descent lamPs tot~gfrom 24 to 120 watts, or a single 12-to 18-watt compact fluorescent; average incandescent lamp life is 2,000 hours; lamp replacement requires$10 in labor costs which can be put to other productive use or displaced. Note that ifa facility has surplus maintenance workers, labor cost savingswill not actually aeerue, These assumptions are adapted from “Exit Signs: Save Energy and Money,” Energy & Environmenta l News , NavalEnergy and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, CA (reprinted in U.S. DOE, FEh4P Update, Federal Energy Management Program,winter 1988, p. 11).

2GSA con~act ~S07F.186zA with Don Gilbert Industries, hc., W. 26, 1990 to Aug. 31, 1994.

3St~dmd clwtic~ exit signs USing incandescent lamps cost as littte as $61.50. GSA Contract Catalog GS07F-18 188, Mar. 1, 1990 to Aug.31, 1994, EMED Co., Inc., p, 11. While the lamps are described in the catalog as “extra long life energy saving lamps,” aeeording to themanufacturer they are incandescent rather than fluorescent. Telephone conversation with customer services department, Nov. 26, 1990.

—.

efficient than older motors (also far more efficient Refrigerators

than the least efficient models currently available). Refrigerators offer an opportunity for a largeAlso, developments in adjustable speed drives can reduction in electricity use in the 9 million federallycreate higher efficiencies by allowing a motor’s owned or assisted households. Each year around halfelectric power input to vary with the load and may a million new refrigerators are purchased for thesebe suitable in some applications. households. The average refrigerator now operating


in the United States uses over 1,500 kWh/year. 55 Themost efficient commercially available models ofsimilar size use less than 60 percent of that amount. 56

The stock of refrigerators in federally owned andassisted households may include smaller units withfewer energy-using features, such as through-the-door ice and water dispensing, than the nationalaverage, slightly reducing the average potentialgains there.

Some of the potential is gradually being captured.The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of1988 (NAECA) set minimum standards for severalappliances, including refrigerators. However, evenwith NAECA, the long lives of refrigerators (over 15years) ensures that inefficient units will continue tobe used in Federal facilities for many years unlessretired early. Further, even as refrigerators arereplaced in federally owned and assisted house-holds, there is no guarantee that the most energyefficient units will be selected rather than thoseminimally meeting the standards. As in the purchaseof any energy-consuming device, several factorssuch as durability and features must be considered aswell as first cost and energy use when selecting arefrigerator. In addition to opportunities in buyingmore efficient refrigerators, regular maintenance(i.e., cleaning condenser coils) can improve effi-ciency.

New Miscellaneous Uses

Most new miscellaneous energy uses rely onelectricity. All are used because of the significantimprovements in performance or productivity theybring. These new miscellaneous uses contribute toincreasing energy use at Federal facilities (or smallerenergy savings). However, these increasing uses ofenergy are not only legitimate, but may be essentialto increasing overall Federal productivity and serv-ices. For example, use of automated mail sortingequipment can increase energy consumption in mailfacilities (see case study of the U.S. Postal ServiceSan Diego Division in ch. 5). At the same time, ithelps speed deliveries and reduce labor require-ments.

Some new miscellaneous energy uses, whileincreasing electricity use in the Federal buildingscan actually contribute to reduced overall energyuse. For example, military use of simulators hasincreased tremendously over the past decade. Mili-tary training on simulators is used for a wide rangeof equipment, including various aircraft, tanks, andeven small arms. A flight simulator can use a con-siderable amount of electricity. However, the amountof jet fuel used in an actual training flight is far morethan enough to compensate for the electricity.

55u.s. Depmrnent of Energy, Energy ~orrnation Administration, Housing Characteristics 1987, DOEEXA-0314(87) wMti@XL DC: U.S.Government Printing OffIce, May 1989), p. 10.

SC1990 DireCtO~ of Certifi”ed R@’gerators and Freezers (Chicago, IL: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, J~UWY 1990).

federal spending on energy used in commercial and residential

Documents